What are the

What are the Possibilities of a Good Digital Society? 1

Possibilities of
a Good Digital
Society?
Introduction to a set of papers
commissioned by the British Academy
Alex Mankoo & Jonny Digby, British Academy

August 2024
What are the Possibilities of a Good Digital Society? 2

Contents
Introduction 3

What makes a good digital society? 3

Overview of papers 4

Unpacking notions of the ‘good’ digital society 4

Digital public services in a good digital society 5

The role of community-led innovations in a good digital society 7

Wellbeing and sustainability in a good digital society 8

Governance and institutions in a good digital society 10

Conclusion: Moving from possibilities to principles 11

References 12
What are the Possibilities of a Good Digital Society? 3

Introduction What makes a good digital society?

The discussion papers that form this series are part of the Building on the above activities, at the end of 2023 the British
British Academy’s Digital Society policy programme, which Academy began a four-stage, multi-year programme around
draws upon the Social Sciences, Humanities and the Arts ‘What makes a good digital society?’ This programme set out
for People and the Economy (the ‘SHAPE’ disciplines) to the work in four consecutive stages: Possibilities, Principles,
explore the ways in which digital technologies, tools, and Processes, and Practices. Thinking through the possibilities
practices shape and are shaped by our society, and to address of digital societies was identified as a crucial starting point,
the questions of what makes for a good digital society because it focuses on how to identify and balance the various
and how policymakers can navigate the digital society in visions, hopes, fears, and aspirations for a digital society
the coming decade. that exist for different stakeholders and communities. From
this, we will move on to think through the principles and
The Academy’s Digital Society programme began in 2022, values underlying different notions of the possible digital
emerging from a variety of preceding activities that laid society. However, while principles-based thinking is valuable
groundwork for the workstream. This included the Academy’s and necessary in this space, especially in a fast-changing
COVID-19 and Society: Shaping the COVID Decade project policy contexts, it can leave scope for misapplication and
and our 2021 partnership with UCL Public Policy on Artificial misunderstanding. It is therefore crucial to also think beyond
Intelligence and the Future of Work.1 From 2022 to 2023, principles, to identify means to enact, implement, and embed
the work in the Digital Society programme centred on an these principles (processes), and how people and organisations
independent project on digital technology and inequality that (a variety of actors) work with such processes and principles
was commissioned by the Government Office for Science. in practice. The four stages are:
This project explored the relationship between digital
inequalities and existing societal inequalities and examined 1. Possibilities; What are the possibilities of a good
how advances in digital technology can mitigate or exacerbate digital society?
existing inequalities, as well as how existing inequalities pose 2. Principles; What are the principles that underpin a good
challenges for access and skills related to digital technology. digital society?
Insights from this project informed a long-form report,
Understanding Digital Poverty and Inequality in the UK, as 3. Processes; What are the processes and mechanisms
well as a Policy Brief on Digital Technology and Inequality.2 available to implement the principles of a good
digital society?
Across 2023, the British Academy also engaged in a range
4. Practices; What does a good digital society look
of activities to feed into the UK government’s Artificial
like in practice?
Intelligence (AI) Safety Summit, which included convening a
pre-summit roundtable around the topic of the possibilities of The papers in this volume were commissioned as part of the
AI for public good.3 In April 2024, we also launched a Digital first stage of this programme. We invited contributions from
Society-themed call as part of our Policy-led Innovation across the SHAPE disciplines that explored the question,
Fellowship scheme, in which Fellows work with policy ‘What are the possibilities of a good digital society?’
partners specified by the British Academy.4

1
  The British Academy (2021), COVID-19 and Society: Shaping the COVID   
3
British Academy engagement around the UK AI Safety Summit.
Decade; The British Academy, UCL (2021), AI and the Future of Work; The British   
4
Innovation Fellowships 2024-25 – Route B: Policy-led (Digital Society)
Academy, The Royal Society, Data Governance.
2
  The British Academy (2022), Understanding digital poverty and inequality in
the UK, The British Academy, London; The British Academy (2023), Digital
Technology & Inequality: Policy Brief, The British Academy, London.
What are the Possibilities of a Good Digital Society? 4

Overview of papers In concluding, they offer three propositions for policy work
in this area, drawn from their collective work: the importance
of listening to diverse users regarding the nature of the
Before turning to the range of different responses to the
good; the need to consider the context-specific elements of
central question across the papers, it is important to note
definitions, perceptions, and recommendations related to
that some papers critical interrogated the question itself.
digital technologies and systems; and, finally, the value of
The prompt, ‘What are the possibilities of a good digital
taking a principles-based approach, which involves setting
society?’ has a normative component to it, particularly in
standards and identifying shared beliefs as opposed to
relation to the notion of the ‘good’ (though arguably concepts
prescriptive rules.
such as the ‘digital’ and the ‘digital society’ are also value-
laden and contingent), and this was challenged by two Peter Bloom’s paper, ‘Envisioning a Just and Sustainable
papers in particular. Digital Future: Expanding Policy Horizons for a Good Digital
Society’, also challenges dominant conceptions of the good
Unpacking notions of the ‘good’ digital society that have guided many digital policies to date, contending
for a fundamental rethink of how we move globally toward
In their cross-cutting paper, ‘What Do We Mean When a just and sustainable digital society.9 Bloom proposes an
We Talk About a Good Digital Society?’, the Digital Good alternative approach to developing digital policies based
Network (DGN)5 consider what is taken for granted in the on principles of abundance, common resource sharing,
question itself, pointing out that definitions of the ‘good’ are sustainability, and participatory democracy, and shifting
highly contested and often underpinned by contradictory away from narrow market-driven approaches that either focus
understandings of what counts as good.6 Indeed, asking on “capitalist optimisation” or “future proofing”.10 He argues
what is ‘good’ also requires asking who decides “whether, that these are exemplified, respectively, by the UK’s pro-
how, when, where, and for whom digital technologies are innovation approach to technology regulation and the EU’s
good.”7 Their paper acknowledges the different philosophical proposed AI Act and its focus on individual protections and
traditions from which different notions of the good descend, safeguarding fundamental rights.
noting that scholarship has historically focused upon narrow
definitions of the good derived from the global North, while Bloom suggests policymakers might therefore explore the
overlooking perspectives from Global South and Indigenous possibilities of the following four levers for a digital society:
cultures, such that dominant definitions have “prioritised (1) distributed (localised) production, (2) collective ownership,
the individual over the community.”8 Similarly, terms like (3) environmental sustainability, and (4) participatory
‘digital’, ‘data’, and ‘AI’ are often widely formulated, taken to governance. While recognising the challenges associated
encompass a variety of different technologies, systems, and with effecting systemic change that may appear utopian to
processes depending on their context of use. some (including securing buy-in for, and scaling up, such
approaches), he highlights a range of initiatives across
However, the DGN argue that the term ‘good’ is not solely global contexts that can operate as useful starting points for
problematic; it can also be a useful tool to consider the policymakers seeking to prioritise community ownership,
experiences of people from a diverse array of groups and think ecological well-being, and the equitable distribution of the
through the complex politics of data, a means to productively benefits of technological innovation across society. These
“imagine” the possible worlds and futures that we wish to initiatives include community wealth-building strategies,
create for society. Accordingly, they suggest three essential social, regenerative, and circular economy approaches,
components of what constitutes a good digital society – platform cooperatives, and community-based innovations.
equity, resilience, and sustainability – and point to various
projects within their network that are working on delivering Thus, a crucial next step for digital policy initiatives is to
research that unpack how these components of the good can think through how digital technologies might be used to
be understood and addressed. create more equitable, sustainable, and democratic societies,

  The Digital Good Network contributors consist of Scott Hale, University

5 6
  The Digital Good Network (2024), What Do We Mean When We Talk About
of Oxford; Rhianne Jones, BBC Research & Development; Helen Kennedy, a Good Digital Society?, The British Academy.
University of Sheffield; Rachel Middlemass, Zinc VC; Abigail Millings, Sheffield 7
  The Digital Good Network, What Do We Mean When We Talk About a Good
Hallam University; Gina Neff, University of Cambridge; Jonathan Corpus Ong, Digital Society?, p. 2.
University of Massachusetts Amherst; Reema Patel, Elgon Social Research; Dan 8
  Ibid.
Richards, Lancaster University; Kim Snooks, Lancaster University; Sara Wajid, 9
  Bloom, P. (2024), Envisioning a Just and Sustainable Digital Future:
Birmingham Museums Trust; Ros Williams, University of Sheffield. Expanding Policy Horizons for a Good Digital Society, The British Academy.
10
  Bloom, Envisioning a Just and Sustainable Digital Future, p. 1.
What are the Possibilities of a Good Digital Society? 5

through multi-level policies that promote technological Dent contrasts the disciplinary approach with the possibilities
development and adoption “in ways that prioritise the well- offered through a ‘relational’ model of public services, which
being of people and the planet over the accumulation of profit puts service users in control and prioritises the relationships
and power.”11 In short, he is contrasting policies that seek between a service and the community, and between
to use digital technologies to uphold the ‘good’ of existing citizens or service users. Such systems are often designed in
(dominant) societal structures, with those that use digital collaboration with the communities they serve (as opposed
technologies in efforts to reimagine, transform, and improve to imposed upon them) and aim to support the building
our collective understanding of a good society, and our of relationships within the community and the generation
ability to get there. of social capital. This relational model points back to the
principle of localised production and diverse participation
The remainder of the papers in this set contribute to this kind that both Bloom and DGN highlight in their papers. Dent
of reimagining, by thinking through the challenges associated notes that most current examples of relational services exist
with current approaches to digital policy across a range of in local or regional contexts (and acknowledges programmes
sectors, considering the variety of alternative possibilities that in Scotland and Liverpool), and that in these cases
re-envisioning the status quo could have for a good digital relational support programmes have been found to improve
society, and offering some routes forward to transform these employment outcomes.14
possibilities into shared principles, implementable processes,
and continued practices. For the purposes of this introductory Yet the challenge of scaling up a relational model from the
overview, the contributions have been divided into four local to the national context remains, as political contexts and
clusters. We also anticipate that these clusters will provide a underlying policy drivers, the process of standardisation itself
basis for activities within our Digital Society programme as it in digital systems, and even the aim of linking employment-
moves into its subsequent phases of work. seeking with benefits entitlement, may create a fundamental
mismatch between social security infrastructure at the
Digital public services in a good digital society national level and an implementation of relational principles.
In concluding, Dent suggests some potential starting points
The first cluster of papers envision a range of different from which to navigate this dilemma, including the co-design
possibilities for what digital public services might look like in of services with service users, the facilitation of relationships
a good digital society. between UC claimants, and the joining up of services in a
more holistic fashion (for instance, through the creation of
Anna Dent’s contribution, ‘Digital Social Security: Towards
a portal or data-sharing system that enables claimants to
Disciplinary or Relational Futures?’, examines two distinct
explore a package of support across government services
approaches to employment support to ask what a good
– including housing, employment support, tax and debt
digital public service might look like in the context of
management, and so on).
social security.12 As the UK’s Universal Credit (UC) system
is now largely mediated through automated decision- In ‘The Possibilities of a Public Service Intervention to
making systems and digitised processes, Dent argues that Support a Good Digital Society’, Helen Jay similarly suggests
digitalisation is a tool for the implementation of UC’s broader that current digital policies toward the digital public sphere,
objectives such as the reduction of budgets and claimant such as the Online Safety Act, the Digital Markets, Consumer,
numbers, combatting fraud, and the implementation of tools and Competition Bill, or the UK’s ‘pro-innovation’ approach to
to influence claimant behaviour. The standardisation process regulating AI, have kept a narrow focus on fostering economic
involved in the datafication of claimant identities in this growth, minimising negative harms, and preventing
‘disciplinary’ system generates potential for discrimination, misinformation, rather than looking to proactively support
bias, and harm towards applicants, with the most vulnerable improved social and democratic outcomes.15 By contrast,
populations usually the most negatively affected. This she contends that the UK’s historical approach to media
“distant and non-human” disciplinary approach aligns with policy, which has “sought to deliver positive civic ‘freedoms’
the “belief that more data will always lead to better outcomes oriented at the public good through public models, funding
from public services.”13 and regulation”, can offer lessons for what good digital ‘public
service’ style interventions might look like.

11
  Bloom, Envisioning a Just and Sustainable Digital Future, p. 10. approaches to disciplinary social security despite known issues relating
12
  Dent, A. (2024), Digital Social Security: Towards Disciplinary or Relational to accuracy, bias, surveillance, and privacy – Dent gives the examples of
Futures?, The British Academy. predictive analytics, biometrics, electronic data cards, and job matching
13
  Dent, Digital Social Security. As governments often draw from digital data analysis.
innovations employed in social security systems in other countries to develop 14
  
Dent, Digital Social Security, p. 9.
their own policies, they risk an unmitigated expansion of authoritarian 15
  Jay, H. (2024), The Possibilities of a Public Service’ Intervention to Support
a Good Digital Society, The British Academy.
What are the Possibilities of a Good Digital Society? 6

Jay points out that the for-profit structural incentives that that policymakers must engage with telecom engineers and
drive the business models of dominant contemporary strategists much earlier than they have in the past. If not,
digital platforms, which emphasise attention engagement technical decisions made by engineers and strategists may –
and data extraction, often do not align with expectations even unintentionally – set undesirable policy directions that
that technology platforms should also be delivering public are hard to rectify.21
good, or, in the words of the British Academy’s Future of
the Corporation report, that they should be purposeful, Secondly, Ward highlights how leaving policy directions to
producing profitable solutions to the problems of people and network operators led to situations in which the network’s
planet, rather than profiting from problems.16 As an example most commercially valuable customers steered the
development of communications infrastructure, noting how
of this tension, Jay points to the controversy that OpenAI
large business users in the financial services sector of the
faced in November 2023 following the dismissal and then
1970s established a lobby to influence the direction of Post
reinstatement of CEO Sam Altman by the non-profit’s board,
Office telecoms strategy. This lobby argued for a financial
a dispute that hinged upon the board’s concerns around
purpose for digitalisation that would be best met through
the rapid pace of AI development versus Altman’s vision for
privatisation and competition, and Ward contends that
commercial growth.17
this weakened BT’s commitment to its less commercially
By contrast, Jay suggests that public service broadcasting valuable users, such as residential users and small businesses,
has operated as a type of ‘positive’ regulation to “promote while also closing off alternative pathways for British
the desirable” – such as informed citizenship, trusted telecommunications strategy. Crucially, Ward points out that
information, equal access to knowledge, and cultural similar dynamics exist today, noting that it remains unclear
diversity – rather than just stopping the undesirable. Many whether Openreach and telephone service providers will be
of the entities that deliver public service broadcasting (e.g. adequately prepared for these users’ needs during the digital
BBC, Channel 4) are publicly owned, and have to adhere switchover initially planned for 2025 (now 2027).22
to detailed public service obligations, and treat their users
“first and foremost as citizens participating in a society, Finally, Ward emphasises that “policymakers may want to
rather than as consumers in a marketplace.”18 She sets out a consider new, alternative structures for the organisation of
Britain’s telecom infrastructure, especially for consumers,
number of possible ways in which the public broadcasting
rather than providers,” particularly arrangements that can
approach could be implemented for a digital society
transcend binaries of privatisation and re-nationalisation.23
through a combination of funding mechanisms, ownerships
models, and regulation, including platform cooperatives, The privatisation of BT closed off alternative futures of
the development of ‘pro-social’ tools, and the adoption of the UK’s digital infrastructure, such as the adoption of a
‘full stack’ approaches that consider how non-commercially regionalised system model, the use of community technology
driven, public-oriented interventions targeted at digital initiatives, collective purchasing and switching, or regional
platforms could deliver public benefit at different layers, from cooperatives, which could give consumers greater purchasing
distribution of technology to content moderation.19 power and align network initiatives with social needs.

Drawing across three different contexts – social security,

Jacob Ward’s paper, ‘The Futures Past of the UK’s Digital
public service broadcasting and media, and communications
Communications Infrastructure’, turns to the history of
infrastructure – Dent, Jay, and Ward offer three ways to re-
Britain’s national telecommunications infrastructure as a
think the possibilities of ‘good’ digital public services. All
site for developing and implementing plans for digitalising
three papers centre upon systems that are currently primarily
the nation.20 Examining the early stages of digitalisation
developed, diffused, and governed in a top-down manner. In
in the 1960s to the privatisation of British Telecom (BT) in
the next section, we turn to a set of papers that think through
1980s, Ward draws three lessons from the ways in which
the possibilities of a good digital society by asking what we
policymakers in the past characterised the aims of public
can learn from digital initiatives and practices that have
digital infrastructure. First, he contends that history shows
emerged from specific communities in a bottom-up fashion.

16
  The British Academy (2021), Policy and Practice for Purposeful Business, The 21
  Ward, The Futures Past of the UK’s Digital Communications Infrastructure.
British Academy, London. Ward cites the examples of the Viewphone and the millimetric waveguide,
17
   Jay, H., The Possibilities of a ‘Public Service’ Intervention to Support a Good two technologies developed by the Post Office from the 1960s onward, and
Digital Society, p. 3. both of which were ultimately failures, as examples of the risks associated
18
  Jay, H., The Possibilities of a ‘Public Service’ Intervention to Support a Good with relying on singular, technical visions of digitalisation when setting long-
Digital Society, p. 5. term policy strategy.
19
  Jay, H., The Possibilities of a ‘Public Service’ Intervention to Support a Good 22
  Ward, The Futures Past of the UK’s Digital Communications Infrastructure.
Digital Society, p. 7. 23
  
Ward, The Futures Past of the UK’s Digital Communications Infrastructure, p.10.
20
  Ward, J. (2024), The Futures Past of the UK’s Digital Communications
Infrastructure, The British Academy.
What are the Possibilities of a Good Digital Society? 7

The role of community-led innovations However, there are some promising routes forward. Gerli
in a good digital society notes that federative models have enabled platform
cooperatives to preserve their local nature while developing
The second cluster of papers envision a range of different technologies at scale. Such approaches could plausibly
possibilities for community innovations, agency, and be used in creating sustainable business models for
resistance in a good digital society. e-government and e-healthcare services. Likewise, research
and incubation programmes could provide frameworks for
In ‘Building a Good Digital Society from the Grassroots:
testing alternative cooperative models for data governance,
Harnessing the Tradition of Community-led Initiatives in the
creating opportunities to pilot the use of collective data
Governance of Digital Services and Infrastructures,’ Paolo
intermediaries in different industrial and geographic settings.
Gerli examines the challenges of sustainability and scalability
Gerli also recommends follow-up to pilot projects that
that grassroots digital initiatives face and offers both
commits additional resources to the scale-up and replicability
policymakers and researchers a set of actions to help sustain
of successful practices, additional measures to strengthen
such initiatives and promote systemic change toward a good
the competitive positions of new entrants to markets (such
digital society.24 Gerli presents three forms of cutting-edge
as the revision of procurement regulations), local and
community-led initiatives from across the world, some of
regional authorities taking up roles in integrating grassroots
which have been mentioned in the papers already discussed
approaches with local initiatives and infrastructures, and the
here: community networks (broadband infrastructures
dissemination of knowledge of models for governing digital
built, managed, and co-operatively owned by groups of
transformation through schools, colleges and universities.27
users), platform cooperatives (digital platforms run as and
by cooperatives of workers or other forms of cooperative By contrast, Kyle Beadle examines acts of data resistance
organisations), and data cooperatives (cooperative across the world in ‘The Possibilities of Data Resistance in
organisations that pool the data of multiple subjects and a Digital Society’.28 Beadle argues that data resistance in a
negotiate on their behalf the conditions at which third parties digital society empowers individuals to reclaim control over
can access and use their data).25 their digital identities and experiences and ensures that they
have adequate representation for their interests and can hold
While many such initiatives have produced societally
to account those who violate these interests. He suggests that
beneficial outcomes within their contexts, they come with a
a ‘good’ digital society mirrors a ‘good’ democratic society,
range of challenges. Community network initiatives are often
by supporting individual and collective agency, autonomy,
undertaken in contrast to nationwide or regional programmes
and empowerment, strengthening democratic values,
that support broadband deployments, with the aim of
promoting equality and justice, and stimulating market
empowering local communities to achieve technological
competition. Likewise, a ‘good’ datafied society is “one that
sovereignty over their broadband infrastructures. Similarly,
supports autonomy and enables the agency of collectives and
procurement regulations on public spending have led
individuals to express ownership over the collection, storage,
governments to favour larger commercial providers over
and usage of their data.”29
community-led networks because of the economic benefits
and lower risks associated with large-scale corporate Privacy-violating data practices and harms derived from
contracts. Grassroots platform cooperatives often struggle algorithmic bias and discrimination, which also weaken
to scale up their activities due to resource limitations and collective autonomy, tend to disproportionately affect
a lack of institutional support. It is not yet clear how data marginalised and vulnerable populations – including
cooperatives can maintain financial viability. Moreover, data LGBTQ+, refugee, and racial minority populations – and
cooperatives will need to develop the skills and workforce Beadle notes that data resistance is largely led by these
to appropriately navigate the technical standards and negatively affected groups. He identifies two interconnected
procedures involved in data sharing, raising questions forms of data resistance: individual data resistance, which
about whether it is viable to ask traditional cooperatives to involves individual users seizing control of their own digital
undertake this function, or whether new entities are needed.26 identities, data portability, and online experiences, and
collective data resistance, which highlights ongoing injustices
and supplies the tools needed for solidarity (particularly in
contexts of corporate algorithmic decision-making which
often aims to isolate users from each other), including
developing strategies to resist surveillance.30

24
  Gerli, P. (2024), Building a Good Digital Society from the Grassroots:   
29
Beadle, The Possibilities of Data Resistance in a Digital Society, p. 3.
Harnessing the Tradition of Community-led Initiatives in the Governance   
30
Beadle, The Possibilities of Data Resistance in a Digital Society.
of Digital Services and Infrastructures, The British Academy. Beadle provides a range of examples of such resistance practices and
25
  Gerli, Building a Good Digital Society from the Grassroots, p. 7. technologies in his paper, while also pointing to and addressing some
26
  Gerli, Building a Good Digital Society from the Grassroots, p. 8. of the challenges relating to data resistance (which include the need for
27
   Gerli, Building a Good Digital Society from the Grassroots, pp. 11-13. democracies to protect themselves from disinformation and extremism,
28
  Beadle, K. (2024), The Possibilities of Data Resistance in a Digital Society, the use of tools and strategies of resistance by criminals and terrorist
The British Academy. organisation, and the effects of the ‘digital divide’).
What are the Possibilities of a Good Digital Society? 8

Beadle ends by offering three policy provocations that Miltner and Highfield provide examples of emerging
consider how policy could leverage or embed the positive initiatives across these areas and examine three case studies
and beneficial elements of data resistance. The first is the of artists who are experimenting with the boundaries of AI
imposition of a data tax for corporations and governments in novel and innovative ways. Ultimately, they argue that
that collect, analyse, manipulate, and utilise individual data a ‘good’ incorporation of generative AI in the creative and
as their main business model, to be applied to the entire culture industries “needs to recognise and support the rights
digital economy rather than one company. The second is and interests of artists while also fostering creative and
the adoption of participatory governance and deliberative innovative applications of these technologies.”34 They suggest
democracy in the design of data regulations, to ensure these that, given the only recent widespread adoption of generative
do not violate individual and collective freedoms. The third AI across the economy and to the public, we are not yet
is the establishment of self-sovereign identity for citizens “locked in” to a technological pathway that violates rights and
through the synthesis of various identity systems across negatively impacts livelihoods. Much like Gerli and Beadle’s
digital services, to enable individuals to control access to their contributions, they suggest that policymakers have an
digital identity across the digital economy.31 opportunity to create a good digital society by learning from,
listening to, and working with community-led initiatives and
Kate Miltner and Tim Highfield, on the other hand, examine innovations across the digital economy.
sector-specific challenges and strategies to reclaim individual
and collective agency over their data and the use of generative
AI in their paper, ‘The Possibilities of “Good” Generative AI Wellbeing and sustainability in a good
in the Cultural and Creative Industries.’32 They engage with digital society
concerns that have been voiced across artistic and creative The third cluster of papers collectively consider what the
industries regarding the training of AI models on artists’ work future of health, wellbeing, and sustainability might look like
without their permission, and the threat of AI taking work across a good digital society.
away from creative professionals or even changing the nature
of that work without their consent. On the other hand, they For instance, Morrow et al.’s paper, ‘Exploring Artificial
also recognise the opportunities and creative possibilities Intelligence Technologies and Quality of Life for Older
that AI offers across culture and the arts, through enabling People Ageing in Place in Super-Aged Societies’, considers
professionals to experiment with new creative practices. the opportunities and challenges associated with the use of
digital and AI technologies to address the fact that growing
Miltner and Highfield divide the primary critiques aimed at numbers of older people worldwide are choosing to “age in
generative AI in the creative and cultural industries into three place” in their own homes, or with family and friends in their
interrelated categories: bias-related harms, impacts on labour, communities.35 Morrow et al. discuss the various ways that
and the cultural impact of AI. They suggest that the UK digital technologies might be used to benefit and enhance
government can grow both its creative and AI sectors through quality of life for ageing populations – particularly given
leading in ‘good’ AI development across four areas that emerging health and care supply challenges and increasing
address these critiques: consent (the creation of a mechanism demand for care – in ways that do not simultaneously
by which creatives can give permission for AI to be trained disadvantage individuals who lack the capacity to
on their work, and be credited appropriately), remuneration digitally engage.
(licensing arrangements to ensure artists are paid for the
use of their work by AI, and registries to enable artists to The benefits that they point to include increased
identify where this has been the case and be compensated opportunities for remote monitoring and clinical
accordingly), consultation (the incorporation of the voices management of conditions at home, early detection and
of creative practitioners into policymaking, consultations, improved self-management of health issues, addressing
and negotiations on AI development and regulation) and quality of life issues relating to mobility, and the promotion
supporting diverse cultural outputs (supporting alternative of active lifestyles. Alongside these healthcare benefits,
and artist-driven approaches to generative AI development).33 digital technologies can also provide indirect benefits by
creating opportunities for social connection, company and
companionship, supporting older people with their physical,
financial, and emotional safety and security, improving
nutrition and food security, fostering a sense of independence
and autonomy, and facilitating broader spiritual activities.36

31
  Beadle, The Possibilities of Data Resistance in a Digital Society, pp. 10-12. 35
  Morrow, E., Ross, F., Naessens, E., Kelly, C., Lynch, M. (2024), Exploring Artificial
32
  Miltner, K., Highfield, T. (2024), The Possibilities of “Good” Generative AI in the Intelligence Technologies and Quality of Life for Older People Ageing in Place
Cultural and Creative Industries, The British Academy. in Super-Aged Societies, The British Academy.
33
  Miltner, Highfield, The Possibilities of “Good” Generative AI in the Cultural and 36
  Morrow et al., Exploring Artificial Intelligence Technologies and Quality of Life
Creative Industries, p. 7. for Older People, p. 1.
34
  
Miltner, Highfield, The Possibilities of “Good” Generative AI in the Cultural and
Creative Industries, p. 11.
What are the Possibilities of a Good Digital Society? 9

To ensure that ageing people are able to access and benefit digital parenting technologies across UK homes. Finally, they
from digital developments in care contexts, Morrow et propose that design decisions made in the development of
al. emphasise five crucial policy levers: (1) regulatory monitoring technologies should include a participatory role
oversight, including evidence-based guidelines to inform the for children, so that technologies are designed in a way that
development and deployment of technologies to safeguard fosters children’s wellbeing and abilities to self-regulate. They
against risks and harms; (2) ensuring equity and fairness call for industry to facilitate ways for parents to engage and
through policy frameworks that uphold rights, standards and support their children with self-regulation, and for regulators
anti-discrimination laws; (3) adequate funding and investment to encourage the adoption of participatory design practices.40
in both technologies and human resources, including grants
and incentives for innovation and public-private partnerships; In ‘The Impacts of Digitalised Daily Life on Climate Change’,
(4) the implementation of comprehensive and targeted digital Amanta et al. consider the environmental implications of
inclusion initiatives; and (5) stakeholder engagement through a good digital society, specifically exploring the indirect
collaboration between policymakers and public service energy impacts of digitalisation (impacts on energy
providers, technology companies, and advocacy groups consumption due to changes to processes, systems, and
and civil society organisations.37 behaviours) as opposed to the direct impacts (the energy
used in use, manufacture, and disposal of digital devices and
Hertog, Weinstein and Zhao take a different approach to infrastructure).41 Specifically, they explore three mechanisms
considering wellbeing, by thinking through the implications through which digital innovations lead to indirect changes
of parental digital monitoring.38 In their contribution, ‘Data- to energy and carbon consumption: efficiency (the capacity
Driven Parenting: Robust Research and Policy Needed of digital technologies to streamline processes and resource
to Ensure that Parental Digital Monitoring Promotes a allocation), substitution (the replacement of traditional
Good Digital Society,’ they discuss how digital monitoring products or services by digital alternatives with different
technologies are now significantly increasing parents’ energy implications) and rebound (where expected gains
capacity to oversee and limit the online and offline behaviour such as energy demand reduction are offset by additional
of their children. While such technologies have the potential consumption/usage of goods/services).42
to increasing children’s safety and help parents feel secure,
they also come with risks such as the potential to undermine Amanta et al. contend that a good digital future will uphold
trust in families and hinder children’s development of both social wellbeing and energy reduction, empowering
self-regulation. individuals and helping them reduce energy consumption,
and that achieving these goals requires meeting what they
However, Hertog, Weinstein and Zhao suggest that these risks term systemic pre-conditions. These pre-conditions include
can be mitigated through strategic human-centred design, equal and fair digital access, trust in tech companies,
how technologies are marketed to families, and the ways governments, and interactions in digital spaces, and ensuring
in which they are adopted into family practices. Echoing users have informed control over how they use technologies
Jay’s paper, Hertog, Weinstein and Zhao argue that “existing and the ways that their data is being used. Accordingly,
policymaking, such as the Online Safety Bill, tends to focus Amanta et al. map the potential indirect energy impacts of
on preventing harms, but ignores the possible benefits that digital transformation across several household activities.
may go hand-in-hand with the risks.”39 They offer three They argue that meeting the systemic pre-conditions across
considerations and concomitant recommendation to guide these domains would significantly reduce energy demand
researchers and policymakers to realising a future in which from daily life in a scenario with high levels of digitalisation.43
digital monitoring technologies can bring benefit to society,
parents, and children. In conclusion, Amanta et al. suggest that policymakers,
research, and industry must develop a combination of
First, they suggest prioritising and investing in research targeted climate policies and novel business models to
that does not solely think about children’s safety in a narrow foster these pre-conditions, paying particular attention
sense that focuses on avoiding harms but overlooks other to the interaction effects between such initiatives. They
goals of parenting such as connecting with and empowering propose five directions for a research agenda in this area,
children. Second, they argue that research must consider and four proactive policy strategies to realise a good digital
individual characteristics and the societal and family contexts future. These four strategies are (1) developing a standard
in which parental monitoring occurs, and should inform measurement and reporting of energy consumption and
the ways that policy addresses the variation in the use of greenhouse gas emissions for a technology or application’s

37
  Morrow et al., Exploring Artificial Intelligence Technologies and Quality of Life 40
  Hertog et al., Data-Driven Parenting, p. 8-12.
for Older People, p. 15. 41
  Amanta, F., Kumar, P., Seger, M., Vrain, E. (2024), The Impacts of Digitalised
38
  Hertog, E., Weinstein, N., Zhao, J. (2024), Data-Driven Parenting: Robust Daily Life on Climate Change, The British Academy.
Research and Policy Needed to Ensure that Parental Digital Monitoring 42
  Amanta et al., The Impacts of Digitalised Daily Life on Climate Change, p. 1.
Promotes a Good Digital Society, The British Academy. 43
  Amanta et al., The Impacts of Digitalised Daily Life on Climate Change, p. 3-4.
39
  Hertog et al., Data-Driven Parenting, p. 6.
What are the Possibilities of a Good Digital Society? 10

lifecycle, (2) embedding environmental sustainability as a These features make up what Coldicutt terms a ‘social
goal in digital strategies, (3) developing cross-sector digital sensing’ function of the Digital Civil Society Observatory,
transformation policies, and (4) managing rebound effects something that stands in contrast to ‘hard systems’
by promoting sustainable business models.44 approaches to sociotechnical change (which tend to overlook
the experiences of vulnerable people and communities
Collectively, the three papers in this section highlight tangible and second- and third-order social or political outcomes of
ways in which digital innovations can help to meet societal innovation and technology adoption and diffusion). As such,
goals around health, wellbeing and sustainability, while also it provides a vital mechanism to identify, understand, and
identifying important design, engagement, and governance respond to the wider and more far-reaching societal impacts
mechanisms that need to be put in place to ensure these of existing and emerging digital technologies.47
benefits are realised in equitable and sustainable ways.
Governance mechanisms are given specific attention in Finally, in ‘Digital Inclusion for a Good Digital Society:
the next cluster of papers. Leveraging the Benefits and Mitigating the Dark Side’, Kacar
and de Luca call for governments to prioritise digital inclusion
Governance and institutions in a good efforts via mechanisms of citizens engagement, arguing
digital society that the preservation and restoration of citizens’ trust in
governments and other institutions is a precondition for a
The fourth cluster of papers focus on the importance of good good digital society.48
governance and effective institutions in realising a good
digital society. Kacar and de Luca point out that existing international
policy goals, such as the United Nations’ aim as part of its
Rachel Coldicutt presents the case for a Digital Civil Society 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to ’leave no one
Observatory in her paper, ‘People Not Code: The Case for a behind’ in the hybrid digital society, assume that digital
Digital Civil Society Observatory.’45 She argues that a non- technologies “reinforce and enhance the institutions that
departmental public body of this kind in the UK would make society safe, stable, functional, and more sustainable.”49
ensure that public experiences are more fairly represented While this can be the case, Kacar and de Luca note that digital
across digital policymakers, noting the crucial role that technologies can also lead to unanticipated effects that
civil society organisations play in anticipating, identifying, undermine institutions, such as a reduction in trust in public
understanding, and responding to early indicators of institutions, driven by an increasingly polarised, unreliable,
societal changes and challenges. She sees such a body sitting and complex online information environment. In this way,
alongside new and existing institutes, such as the AI Safety efforts not to leave people behind can unintentionally create
Institute and the Alan Turing Institute, functioning as a new obstacles to realising a good digital society. Rather, Kacar
voice for public interest, undertaking horizon scanning, and de Luca claim that a “in a good digital society a digital
synthesising research and expertise from across civil society, ecosystem of technologies and actors works for the public
and delivering research, social impact assessments, policy interest by supporting the relationship between people and
proposals, and training and best practice guidance. Indeed, core societal institutions.”50
such a mechanism could provide a function for the kinds of
participatory governance and deliberative democracy that Kacar and de Luca ultimately contend that a good digital
several of the papers have discussed.46 society is one that is participatory and responsive. They note
that collaborative mechanisms with citizens, such as the
Coldicutt details the valuable ways that civil society co-production of public services, have been found to improve
organisations are uniquely positioned to provide support wellbeing, political accountability, and the management of
networks, empirical knowledge, and early identification of budget deficits.51 They also highlight that digital technologies
emerging trends, pointing to how it is vital for the sector can themselves be used to increase citizen participation
to be engaged alongside government, academia, and through e-participation initiatives, which involve relevant
industry in not only the development of digital strategy and stakeholders in online participatory processes around public
policymaking, but also in direction setting and defining what decision-making and policymaking, and point to research
a good digital society looks like on an ongoing basis. that has found that e-participation has led to an increase
in citizens feeling that they can influence decisions in
their local area.

44
  Amanta et al., The Impacts of Digitalised Daily Life on Climate Change, p. 12. 47
  Coldicutt, People Not Code, p. 10.
45
  Coldicutt, R. (2024), People Not code: The Case for a Digital Civil Society 48
  Kacar, M., de Luca, L. (2024), Digital Inclusion for a Good Digital Society:
Observatory, The British Academy. Leveraging the Benefits and Mitigating the Dark Side, The British Academy.
46
  While Coldicutt and Kacar and de Luca’s papers focus more explicitly on 49
  Kacar, de Luca, Digital Inclusion for a Good Digital Society, p. 4.
governance and institutions, many of the other papers also engage with this 50
  Kacar, de Luca, Digital Inclusion for a Good Digital Society, p. 7.
theme. Indeed, the clusters noted in this summary are a useful means to think 51
  Kacar, de Luca, Digital Inclusion for a Good Digital Society, p. 10.
through the core themes across the papers but are by no means intended to
be mutually exclusive.
What are the Possibilities of a Good Digital Society? 11

Conclusion: Moving from meaningfully with the public in their research, development,
and evaluation processes. They stressed that a good digital

Possibilities to Principles society would be one realised through engagement with a

diverse range of communities, including with children, young
In July 2024, the British Academy convened the paper authors people, older age groups, and particularly with grassroots
with selected stakeholders from across policy, academia and organisations, marginalised groups and those who do not
civil society for a workshop to reflect upon the papers and wish to engage with the digital world, to ensure that their
the similarities and divergences across them. Furthermore, voices are heard and their values are taken into account, to
with the second stage of the British Academy’s Digital Society encourage co-creation, and to enable digital technologies and
programme in mind, participants were asked to reflect on the policies that can improve outcomes across a wider range of
principles of a good digital society that might underpin the different life circumstances and socioeconomic contexts.
various visions discussed across the papers.
Relatedly, participants pointed out that priority should be
Workshop participants raised how digital technologies, given to engaging communities most impacted by digital
tools and practices are so embedded in our everyday lives innovations (for example, artists and creatives whose
that it is impossible to separate out discussions around the livelihoods are already being negatively impacted by
‘good digital society’ and the ‘good society’ more broadly. A Generative AI technologies). Crucially, such engagement
recurring strand of the conversations focused on the risks of would build trust between stakeholders, in societal
the key technologies and digital infrastructure upon which institutions, and in government – an essential component
our societies depend being developed, owned, and managed to a good digital society, according to Kacar and de Luca.52
by a few private technology companies, organisations that Moreover, given that the most harmful environmental and
can and often do have aims and interests that do not always social impacts of digitalisation are likely to fall on the already
align with enhancing public good and delivering wider marginalised and disadvantaged, numerous participants also
societal benefit. Additionally, participants noted that these suggested equity as a key principle of a good digital society
companies tend to focus on developing new technologies that promotes social justice.
as quickly as they can, but it is doubtful that they are aware
Finally, the group stressed the value of sustainability as
of, or understand, the full extent of the societal impact of
a central principle in a good digital society, both in an
their innovations.
environmental and social context. As noted by Amanta et
By contrast, participants suggested that, in a good digital al., digitalisation can produce a range of environmental
society, technology companies would embed principles of externalities; while in some instances, it can reduce direct
inclusive, human-centred, value-informed design at the energy consumption, these reductions can be offset by
heart of their approaches to developing new technologies, increased indirect energy consumption and ‘rebound
working with different sectors, communities, and actors from effects.’53 Other participants pointed out that digital
across civil society, academia, and policy, and harnessing innovations could be designed and employed to meet
insights from both STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering sustainable aims and needs of specific communities, for
and Mathematics) and SHAPE disciplines in order to better example improving the wellbeing of young people and
understand the societal impacts – both positive and negative parents, older age groups, and marginalised communities.
– of their technologies. Such an approach would recognise Digital technologies, tools, and practices can help
that conceptions of the ‘good’ can and do vary between meet societal objectives around health, education and
different communities, groups, and sectors across society, wellbeing, so participants suggested that in a good digital
providing a basis for bridging differences and building society environmental sustainability, and sustainability
systems that generate benefits that can be shared equitably. more broadly, could also be embedded as objectives in
digital strategies.
Similarly, public engagement and participation emerged
as key principles in a good digital society for shaping The next stage of the British Academy’s Digital Society
the design, monitoring, and regulation of new digital programme will build upon the provocations in these papers
technologies and the legislation governing them. Participants and the ideas generated at the workshop to propose a set of
emphasised the importance of participatory mechanisms principles that might usefully underpin these diverse visions
as a means of promoting accountability that would enable of a good digital society, while looking to ensure that any such
both policymakers and private companies responsible principles are feasible, and supported by mechanisms that
for crucial digital infrastructures and services to consult transform them into ongoing praxis.

  Kacar, de Luca, Digital Inclusion for a Good Digital Society, p. 1.

52
  Amanta et al., The Impacts of Digitalised Daily Life on Climate Change, p. 6.
53
What are the Possibilities of a Good Digital Society? 12

References The Digital Good Network (2024), What Do We Mean When

We Talk About a Good Digital Society?, The British Academy.
Amanta, F., Kumar, P., Seger, M., Vrain, E. (2024),
The Impacts of Digitalised Daily Life on Climate Change, Gerli, P. (2024), Building a Good Digital Society from the
The British Academy. Grassroots: Harnessing the Tradition of Community-
led Initiatives in the Governance of Digital Services and
Beadle, K. (2024), The Possibilities of Data Resistance in a Infrastructures, The British Academy.
Digital Society, The British Academy.
Hertog, E., Weinstein, N., Zhao, J. (2024), Data-Driven
Bloom, P. (2024), Envisioning a Just and Sustainable Digital Parenting: Robust Research and Policy Needed to Ensure that
Future: Expanding Policy Horizons for a Good Digital Society, Parental Digital Monitoring Promotes a Good Digital Society,
The British Academy. The British Academy.

The British Academy (2021), COVID-19 and Society: Shaping Jay, H. (2024), The Possibilities of a ‘Public Service’
the COVID Decade, The British Academy. Intervention to Support a Good Digital Society,
The British Academy.
The British Academy (2021), Policy and Practice for Purposeful
Business, The British Academy. Kacar, M., de Luca, L. (2024), Digital Inclusion for a Good
Digital Society: Leveraging the Benefits and Mitigating the
The British Academy (2022), Understanding Digital Poverty
Dark Side, The British Academy.
and Inequality in the UK, The British Academy.
Miltner, K., Highfield, T. (2024), The Possibilities of “Good”
The British Academy (2023), Digital Technology & Inequality:
Generative AI in the Cultural and Creative Industries,
Policy Brief, The British Academy.
The British Academy.
The British Academy, UCL (2021), AI and the Future of Work,
Morrow, E., Ross, F., Naessens, E., Kelly, C., Lynch, M. (2024),
The British Academy.
Exploring Artificial Intelligence Technologies and Quality of
Coldicutt, R. (2024), People Not Code: The Case for a Digital Life for Older People Ageing in Place in Super-Aged Societies,
Civil Society Observatory, The British Academy. The British Academy.

Dent, A. (2024), Digital Social Security: Towards Disciplinary Ward, J. (2024), The Futures Past of the UK’s Digital
or Relational Futures?, The British Academy. Communications Infrastructure, The British Academy.
The British Academy is the UK’s national academy The British Academy
for the humanities and social sciences. We mobilise 10–11 Carlton House Terrace
these disciplines to understand the world and shape London SW1Y 5AH
a brighter future.
Registered charity no. 233176
From artificial intelligence to climate change, from
building prosperity to improving well-being – today’s thebritishacademy.ac.uk
complex challenges can only be resolved by deepening Twitter: @BritishAcademy_
our insight into people, cultures and societies. Facebook: TheBritishAcademy

We invest in researchers and projects across the UK © The British Academy. This is an open
and overseas, engage the public with fresh thinking access publication licensed under a
and debates, and bring together scholars, government, Creative Commons Attribution-
business and civil society to influence policy for the NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0
benefit of everyone. International License.
To cite this report:
Mankoo, A., Digby, J. (2024), What are the
Possibilities of a Good Digital Society?
Introduction to a set of papers
commissioned by the British Academy.
The British Academy.

doi.org/10.5871/digital-society/
possibilities-intro

Published September 2024